Good point. There are other proctoring services that offer a human proctor. So, at one level, we would be competing with them.
But, more importantly, we tell our teachers that they should think of AutoProctor as more of a preventive tool. Just knowing that they are being monitored means that students are much less likely to cheat. Teachers tell us that student grades have dropped significantly since they started using AutoProctor. So, at least as of now, it seems to be working.
Another area we would have to worry about with a human reviewing the evidence is the Privacy. For now, only the algorithm and the kid's teachers have access to the data. Opening it up to third-party contractors would mean having to deal with all the issues that brings along.
Hi Rahim, thanks a lot for the reference. I did check them out, both the demo video and a few libraries. You are right that the basic premise is the same. And, yes, they allow for a much more customisable flow. Lots to learn from them!
One difference I see is that Oppia seems to be making AJAX calls (am not familiar with Angular, so, maybe I am wrong). Whereas, I deliberately chose the quiz flow to be one that goes to a different URL as you progress. But, yes, will take a look at the backend and DB and see how things are stored and processed.
I learnt just enough web development to be able to build this. So, it will take me a little bit of time to understand code written by a Google team :)
"I learnt just enough web development to be able to build this."
Congrats! Seriously, this is the best way to learn. We're all on the same journey :)
EDIT: Yes, Oppia doesn't appear to update the URL after each step. So if you refresh the page you're back at the start of the lesson. (They didn't have to do it that way, though: http://www.codemag.com/article/1301091)
